Development and application of the scenario-fractal ESG assessment method for enterprise decision sustainability

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15587/2706-5448.2026.364678

Keywords:

sustainable development, ESG assessment, management decisions, scenario approach, fractal consistency, decarbonization

Abstract

The object of research is a scenario-fractal assessment of the ecology, society, management (ESG assessment) of the sustainability of management decisions of enterprises. The problem of assessing not the general level of sustainability of the enterprise, but specific decisions was solved. Such decisions are made in conditions of military challenges, climate risks, resource instability and increasing requirements for ESG reporting. The theoretical part of the work is based on a combination of various scientific approaches. The methodological part involves the formation of a system of ESG indicators. Also used are the normalization of indicators, eclecticism of weights and a scenario ESG index. The data completeness coefficient and the fractal consistency coefficient, which show the similarity of the ESG profile of the decision at the strategic, tactical and operational levels of management, were separately taken into account. The empirical basis of the research was formed using open data of metallurgical enterprises. The decarbonization solutions of Interpipe Group, Metinvest and SSAB were analyzed. The choice of the industry was made from the standpoint of high carbon intensity of metallurgy and availability of public ESG information. The results of the method showed that the highest sustainability index is for the SSAB solution. Its advantage is related to both the environmental component and social manageability, management evidence and scenario endurance. The Interpipe solution has environmental advantages, but requires strengthening the verifiability of ESG data. The Metinvest solution is distinguished by high decarbonization ambition, but has shortcomings of a social and crisis nature. The results confirm that the sustainability of the solution must be formed through the balance of components, scenario stability and inter-level consistency.

The practical use of the obtained results is appropriate in the field of corporate ESG analysis, preparation of ESG reporting and selection of management alternatives. The method is suitable for use in conditions of uncertainty.

Author Biographies

Oleh Kniaz, Lviv Polytechnic National University

Candidate of Economic Sciences

Department of Entrepreneurship and Environmental Expertise of Goods

Petro Pererva, National Technical University “Kharkiv Polytechnic Institute”

Doctor of Economic Sciences, Professor

Department of Business Economics and International Economic Relations

Ihor Franiv, Lviv University of Trade and Economics

Doctor of Economic Sciences, Professor, Head of Department

Department of Entrepreneurship, Trade and Logistics

Roman Rusyn-Hrynyk, Lviv Polytechnic National University

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), Associate Professor

Department of Entrepreneurship and Environmental Expertise of Goods

Kateryna Pelekh, Lviv University of Trade and Economics

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

Department of Entrepreneurship, Trade and Logistics

References

  1. Shannon, C. E. (1948). A Mathematical Theory of Communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27 (3), 379–423. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x
  2. Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8 (3), 338–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0019-9958(65)90241-x
  3. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resource allocation. New York; London: McGraw-Hill. Available at: https://archive.org/details/analytichierarch0000saat
  4. Hwang, C.-L., Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and applications. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9
  5. Mandelbrot, B. B. (1982). The fractal geometry of nature. W. H. Freeman. Available at: https://lab.semi.ac.cn/library/upload/files/2019/1/412557940.pdf
  6. Funtowicz, S. O., Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25 (7), 739–755. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-l
  7. Hart, S. L. (1995). A Natural-Resource-Based View of the Firm. The Academy of Management Review, 20 (4), 986–1014. https://doi.org/10.2307/258963
  8. Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1995). Scenario planning: A tool for strategic thinking. Sloan Management Review, 36 (2), 25–40. Available at: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/scenario-planning-a-tool-for-strategic-thinking/
  9. Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Capstone.
  10. Waddock, S. A., Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (4), 303–319. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(199704)18:4<303::aid-smj869>3.0.co;2-g
  11. Bobby Banerjee, S. (2001). Corporate environmental strategies and actions. Management Decision, 39 (1), 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1108/eum0000000005405
  12. Hart, S. L., Milstein, M. B. (2003). Creating sustainable value. Academy of Management Perspectives, 17 (2), 56–67. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2003.10025194
  13. Porter, M. E., Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review. Available at: https://hbr.org/2006/12/strategy-and-society-the-link-between-competitive-advantage-and-corporate-social-responsibility
  14. Eccles, R. G., Krzus, M. P. (2010). One report: Integrated reporting for a sustainable strategy. Wiley. Available at: https://www.wiley.com/en-us/One+Report%3A+Integrated+Reporting+for+a+Sustainable+Strategy-p-9780470587515
  15. Porter, M. E., Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review. Available at: https://hbr.org/2011/01/the-big-idea-creating-shared-value
  16. Eccles, R. G., Krzus, M. P., Rogers, J., Serafeim, G. (2012). The Need for Sector‐Specific Materiality and Sustainability Reporting Standards. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 24 (2), 65–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6622.2012.00380.x
  17. Eccles, R. G., Serafeim, G. (2013). The performance frontier: Innovating for a sustainable strategy. Harvard Business Review. Available at: https://hbr.org/2013/05/the-performance-frontier-innovating-for-a-sustainable-strategy
  18. Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I., Serafeim, G. (2014). The Impact of Corporate Sustainability on Organizational Processes and Performance. Management Science, 60 (11), 2835–2857. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.1984
  19. Clark, G. L., Feiner, A., Viehs, M. (2014). From the Stockholder to the Stakeholder: How Sustainability Can Drive Financial Outperformance. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2508281
  20. Friede, G., Busch, T., Bassen, A. (2015). ESG and financial performance: aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 5 (4), 210–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2015.1118917
  21. Chatterji, A. K., Durand, R., Levine, D. I., Touboul, S. (2015). Do ratings of firms converge? Implications for managers, investors and strategy researchers. Strategic Management Journal, 37 (8), 1597–1614. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2407
  22. Dorfleitner, G., Halbritter, G., Nguyen, M. (2015). Measuring the level and risk of corporate responsibility – An empirical comparison of different ESG rating approaches. Journal of Asset Management, 16 (7), 450–466. https://doi.org/10.1057/jam.2015.31
  23. Khan, M., Serafeim, G., Yoon, A. (2016). Corporate Sustainability: First Evidence on Materiality. The Accounting Review, 91 (6), 1697–1724. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-51383
  24. van Duuren, E., Plantinga, A., Scholtens, B. (2015). ESG Integration and the Investment Management Process: Fundamental Investing Reinvented. Journal of Business Ethics, 138 (3), 525–533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2610-8
  25. Escrig-Olmedo, E., Fernández-Izquierdo, M. Á., Ferrero-Ferrero, I., Rivera-Lirio, J. M., Muñoz-Torres, M. J. (2019). Rating the Raters: Evaluating how ESG Rating Agencies Integrate Sustainability Principles. Sustainability, 11 (3), 915. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030915
  26. Boffo, R., Patalano, R. (2020). ESG investing: Practices, progress and challenges. OECD. https://www.oecd.org/finance/ESG-Investing-Practices-Progress-and-Challenges.pdf
  27. Drempetic, S., Klein, C., Zwergel, B. (2019). The Influence of Firm Size on the ESG Score: Corporate Sustainability Ratings Under Review. Journal of Business Ethics, 167 (2), 333–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04164-1
  28. Hilario-Caballero, A., Garcia-Bernabeu, A., Salcedo, J. V., Vercher, M. (2020). Tri-criterion model for constructing low-carbon mutual fund portfolios: A preference-based multi-objective genetic algorithm approach. arXiv:2006.11888. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2006.11888
  29. Kniaz, S., Kosovska, V., Shayda, O., Novosad, Z., Yaremko, L., Fedyuk, V. (2021). Method of Selection of Indicators in the Context of Information and Analytical Support of Evaluation of Development of Foreign Economic Activity of Enterprises. 2021 11th International Conference on Advanced Computer Information Technologies (ACIT). IEEE, 389–392. https://doi.org/10.1109/acit52158.2021.9548613
  30. Capizzi, V., Gioia, E., Giudici, G., Tenca, F. (2021). The divergence of esg ratings: an analysis of italian listed companies. Journal of Financial Management, Markets and Institutions, 9 (2). https://doi.org/10.1142/s2282717x21500067
  31. Sahin, Ö., Bax, K., Czado, C., Paterlini, S. (2022). Environmental, Social, Governance scores and the Missing pillar – Why does missing information matter? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 29 (5), 1782–1798. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2326
  32. Berg, F., Kölbel, J. F., Rigobon, R. (2022). Aggregate Confusion: The Divergence of ESG Ratings. Review of Finance, 26 (6), 1315–1344. https://doi.org/10.1093/rof/rfac033
  33. Kniaz, S., Brych, V., Marhasova, V., Tyrkalo, Y., Skrynkovskyy, R., Sumets, A. (2022). Modeling of the Information System of Environmental Risk Management of an Enterprise. 2022 12th International Conference on Advanced Computer Information Technologies (ACIT). IEEE, 215–218. https://doi.org/10.1109/acit54803.2022.9912743
  34. Mastrandrea, R., ter Burg, R., Shan, Y., Hubacek, K., Ruzzenenti, F. (2022). Scaling laws in global corporations as a benchmarking approach to assess environmental performance. arXiv:2206.03148. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2206.03148
  35. Mysiuk, R. V., Yuzevych, V. M., Yasinskyi, M. F., Kniaz, S. V., Duriagina, Z. A., Kulyk, V. V. (2022). Determination of conditions for loss of bearing capacity of underground ammonia pipelines based on the monitoring data and flexible search algorithms. Archives of Materials Science and Engineering, 115 (1), 13–20. https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0016.0671
  36. Shaikh, I. (2022). Environmental, social, and governance (esg) practice and firm performance: an international evidence. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 23 (1), 218–237. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2022.16202
  37. Cesarone, F., Martino, M. L., Federica, F., Scozzari, A. (2023). Managing ESG Ratings Disagreement in Sustainable Portfolio Selection. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4676312
  38. Fichtner, J., Jaspert, R., Petry, J. (2023). Mind the ESG capital allocation gap: The role of index providers, standard‐setting, and “green” indices for the creation of sustainability impact. Regulation & Governance, 18 (2), 479–498. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12530
  39. Kniaz, S., Podolchak, N., Dziurakh, Yu., Karkovska, V., Kucher, A. (2023). Development of government regulation on investment activities in agriculture of Ukraine. Ikonomicheski Izsledvania, 32 (2), 136–150. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.12289.53600
  40. Patel, A., Gloor, P. A. (2023). Creating a systematic ESG scoring system using social network analysis and machine learning for more sustainable company practices. arXiv:2309.05607. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2309.05607
  41. Zhang, J., Tan, K. S., Wirjanto, T. S., Porth, L. (2023). Navigating uncertainty in ESG investing. arXiv:2310.02163. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.02163
  42. Hassani, B. K., Bahini, Y. (2025). Crosswashing in Sustainable Investing: Unveiling Strategic Practices Impacting ESG Scores. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5576241
  43. Kniaz, S., Brych, V., Heorhiadi, N., Shevchenko, S., Dzvonyk, R., Skrynkovskyy, R. (2024). Enhancing the Informativeness of Managing Mentoring Activities based on Simulation Modeling. 2024 14th International Conference on Advanced Computer Information Technologies (ACIT), 8, 384–388. https://doi.org/10.1109/acit62333.2024.10712547
  44. Kniaz, S., Brych, V., Heorhiadi, N., Shevchenko, S., Dzvonyk, R., Skrynkovskyy, R. (2024). Informational-Reflective Management of Mentoring Activities Development in the Enterprise. 2024 14th International Conference on Advanced Computer Information Technologies (ACIT), 13, 389–392. https://doi.org/10.1109/acit62333.2024.10712601
  45. Li, Z., Yang, Z. (2025). ESG rating disagreement and corporate Total Factor Productivity: Inference and prediction. Finance Research Letters, 78, 107127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2025.107127
  46. Morelli, C., Boccaletti, S., Maranzano, P., Otto, P. (2025). Multidimensional Spatiotemporal Clustering – An Application to Environmental Sustainability Scores in Europe. Environmetrics, 36 (2). https://doi.org/10.1002/env.2893
  47. Birti, M., Maurino, A., Osborne, F. (2025). Optimizing Large Language Models for ESG Activity Detection in Financial Texts. Proceedings of the 6th ACM International Conference on AI in Finance, 856–863. https://doi.org/10.1145/3768292.3770371
  48. Faruq, A. T. M. O., Chowdhury, M. A. R. (2025). Financial markets and ESG: How big data is transforming sustainable investing in developing countries. arXiv:2503.06696. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2503.06696
  49. Kansoy, F., Stasiulaitis, D. (2025). Green Shields: The Role of ESG in Uncertain Times. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5278853
  50. Lee, S. (2025). Modeling firm-level ESG-sentiment interactions in stock returns: Evidence from 16 companies using retrofitted word embeddings. arXiv:2507.11485. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.11485
  51. Li, Y. (2025). SOE’s ESG performance on financial flexibility: The evidence from the Hong Kong stock market. arXiv:2502.14261. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.14261
  52. Moskvyak, Y., Kucher, A., Kniaz, S., Heorhiadi, N., Fedorchak, O. (2025). Construction of a model for forecasting the rationality of financial decisions under the conditions of financial markets digitalization. Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies, 2 (13 (134)), 38–50. https://doi.org/10.15587/1729-4061.2025.325518
  53. Fedorchak, O., Moskvyak, Y., Kucher, A., Kniaz, S. (2025). Ensuring the objectivity of the technology for forecasting business process indicators in the field of e-commerce. Technology Audit and Production Reserves, 2 (4 (82)), 14–23. https://doi.org/10.15587/2706-5448.2025.326211
  54. Kniaz, S., Brych, V., Heorhiadi, N., Shevchenko, S., Sternyuk, O., Skrynkovskyy, R. (2025). Analytical Toolkit for Monitoring the Assortment Policy of Marketplaces based on Omnichannel Approach and CRM Technologies. 2025 15th International Conference on Advanced Computer Information Technologies (ACIT). IEEE, 373–376. https://doi.org/10.1109/acit65614.2025.11185900
  55. Kniaz, S., Brych, V., Heorhiadi, N., Fedorchak, O., Moskvyak, Y., Tyrkalo, Y. (2025). Information and Analytical Support for Adapting Financial Management in E-Commerce Enterprises to Market Changes. 2025 15th International Conference on Advanced Computer Information Technologies (ACIT). IEEE, 377–380. https://doi.org/10.1109/acit65614.2025.11185716
  56. Kniaz, O., Pererva, P., Heorhiadi, N., Vilhutska, R., Peredalo, K. (2026). Formation of an ESG management system based on digital analytics. Technology Audit and Production Reserves, 2 (4 (88)), 98–111. https://doi.org/10.15587/2706-5448.2026.357883
  57. Interpipe reduced CO₂ emissions in the production of seamless pipes by 61% and railway products by 46% (2025). GMK Center. Available at: https://gmk.center/en/news/interpipe-reduced-co2-emissions-in-the-production-of-seamless-pipes-by-61-and-railway-products-by-46/
  58. Bouckley, E. (2022). Ukraine’s Metinvest rolls out plan for green steelmaking by 2050. S&P Global. Available at: https://www.spglobal.com/energy/en/news-research/latest-news/metals/020422-ukraines-metinvest-rolls-out-plan-for-green-steelmaking-by-2050
  59. About the report: Annual report 2024 (2025). Metinvest. Available at: https://metinvestholding.com/ar2024/uploads/2025/07/about-the-report.pdf
  60. SSAB’s updated climate goals approved by the Science Based Targets initiative (2024). SSAB AB. Available at: https://www.ssab.com/en/news/2024/06/ssabs-updated-climate-goals-approved-by-the-science-based-targets-initiative
  61. Transforming the future of steel (2024). SSAB annual report 2024. SSAB AB. Available at: https://www.ssab.com/-/media/files/company/investors/annual-reports/2024/ssab_annual_report_2024.pdf?m=20250320120634
Development and application of the scenario-fractal ESG assessment method for enterprise decision sustainability

Downloads

Published

2026-06-19

How to Cite

Kniaz, O., Pererva, P., Franiv, I., Rusyn-Hrynyk, R., & Pelekh, K. (2026). Development and application of the scenario-fractal ESG assessment method for enterprise decision sustainability. Technology Audit and Production Reserves, 3(4(89), 39–55. https://doi.org/10.15587/2706-5448.2026.364678

Issue

Vol. 3 No. 4(89) (2026): Economics of enterprises. Macroeconomics

Section

Economics and Enterprise Management

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Oleh Kniaz, Petro Pererva, Ihor Franiv, Roman Rusyn-Hrynyk, Kateryna Pelekh

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The consolidation and conditions for the transfer of copyright (identification of authorship) is carried out in the License Agreement. In particular, the authors reserve the right to the authorship of their manuscript and transfer the first publication of this work to the journal under the terms of the Creative Commons CC BY license. At the same time, they have the right to conclude on their own additional agreements concerning the non-exclusive distribution of the work in the form in which it was published by this journal, but provided that the link to the first publication of the article in this journal is preserved.